So, I glanced at a headline today and saw "World Condemns Israeli Attack". Yet, it struck me that whenever there is a suicide bomber attack the paper tends to be straight foward in it's statement of "Another suicide bombing" or the like.
Now it seems to me that the world should be condemning suicide bombings, especially after 9/11, how can anyone look so passively at this form of terrorism? I just don't understand it. Yes, some of the consequences to Israeli attacks are horrible, innocent casualties always are, but I think the major difference here is that suicide bombers virtually always target innocents, whereas the Israeli forces tend to have specific military targets in mind with civilians getting caught in the crossfire. Even if you question the veracity of this statement, when was the last time a suicide bomber attempted to target a valid military target?
When America was attacked by a suicide bomber, America went to war. When Israel is attacked by a suicide bomber, the world condemns any Israeli retaliation.
To give an analogy to the way I see things. If the United States suffered repeated suicide bombings that emerged from a group of people situated inside the USA, they would go in and take out whoever was causing the problem. Period. Yes, there would be news coverage. Would anyone say that the United States should back down? Would the USA listen if anyone did say that?
The victims of the Oklahoma bombing were pretty clear on their feelings towards the bomber. It seems pretty clear how the USA feels about 9/11.
There are differences between these events and the situation in Israel that's true.
But the victims are still innocent people.
And the hostility of the world to any reaction by Israel is hypocritical at best in my opinion.
I just don't understand the hypocrisy.
Posted by hugin at July 25, 2002 01:11 PM